Visit Catch. Good things are happening over there. If you're blogging and looking for more exposure on a high-traffic site, they're looking for talented writers to do some occassional guest blogging. Drop 'em a line.

posted on Mar 21, 04 @ 11:49 am ET [0] trackbacks

link this

Wowie zowie, the wingnuts and the Never Forgeters in the blog world are rewriting their sympathy cards for the Spaniards faster than you can say "Bush's failed foreign policy." First they turn on 9/11 widows and now they're aiming their scorn at a nation that suffered a terrible tragedy only three days ago because they don't like the results of an election in a country where its citizens are allowed to exercise their freedom by voting. Charming.

Spain isn't the only place where the "terrorists have won"...

APPEASER:

The Popular Party conceded defeat to Socialist leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, who will take over from outgoing Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, a staunch supporter of the U.S.-led war in Iraq that most Spaniards opposed. "My most immediate priority is to beat all forms of terrorism," said Zapatero, asking for a minute’s silence in honor of the 200 people killed in the bombings on four packed commuter trains.

 
MORE: Billmon and Josh Marshall weigh in, too.

UGH:

OK, MY CORNER COMPADRES [Michael Graham] Does anyone know the Spanish word for "coward?" I need to know before I go on the air at 10am (630wmal.com via the net).

 
I think it's pollo halcón.

posted on Mar 15, 04 @ 12:01 am ET [1] trackbacks

link this

posted on Mar 12, 04 @ 6:18 pm ET [0] trackbacks

link this

As many readers of this blog know, I've been following the Nour/Chalabi connection and this article underscores just how much damage this bogus contract deal is doing to our efforts in Iraq:

The Army has canceled a $327-million contract to supply Iraqi security forces that had been awarded last month to a small Virginia company whose principal is a close associate of Ahmed Chalabi, a Pentagon favorite in Iraq. The connection between the company, Nour USA, and Chalabi was first revealed by Newsday last month. Army spokesman Maj. Gary Tallman said yesterday the cancellation was not a reflection on Nour's bid. He said it was being rebid because there had been "too much ambiguity" in the wording of the original solicitation. He said a new proposal would go out in two to three months. [emphasis added] A top U.S. officer expressed frustration in Baghdad this week over the delay and said it was hindering efforts to restore security in Iraq. Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, said his division had successfully trained more than 10,000 Iraqis to be police, security and border guards in the volatile region stretching from Fallujah to the Syrian border. But, he said, the forces lack the equipment they need to fight insurgents and protect the vast Iraqi border. "If we had the equipment for these brave young men, we would be much farther along," he told reporters in Baghdad.

 
Chalabi, the gift from the neocons that keeps on giving.

posted on Mar 12, 04 @ 5:57 pm ET [0] trackbacks

link this

From the Cyborg Name Generator:

Right:

 
Wrong:

 
Perfect:

posted on Mar 11, 04 @ 3:13 pm ET [0] trackbacks

link this

John McCain, gosh love him, has been bitch-slapping BushCo at every possible opportunity (Kerry VP hint, 9/11 Commission extension, Bush ad criticism, etc.). Even Howie Fineman is pointing out the obvious: "Truth be told, John McCain really can’t stand George W. Bush." And here's yet another bitch-slap that's not getting a lot of attention:

McCain, a senior member of the committee, has been leading attacks on [Bush nominee for Army secretary James] Roche's handling of a $27.6 billion Boeing tanker deal, even accusing Roche of "exaggerating aerial tanker shortfalls and problems to win approval of the lease." "If this represents the kind of acquisition reforms and Defense transformation we can expect from Secretary Roche if he is confirmed as secretary of the Army, then God help the Army and the American taxpayer," McCain has said. The committee has insisted that the Bush administration release Roche's e-mail and other internal documents on the Air Force's plan to buy the refueling tankers. McCain had even said he would not rule out putting a hold on Roche's nomination. A hold stalls a nomination, preventing it from going to the Senate floor for a confirmation vote.

 
And then there's this:

The Senate has dealt a surprising election-year rebuke to the White House goal of new tax cuts, narrowly backing a new rule to require at least 60 votes to approve any tax cuts in the next five years. Four Republican senators - Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, John McCain of Arizona, and Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both of Maine - joined Democrats in the 51-to-48 vote.

 
Payback is a bitch, Potatohead Rove. Go, John, go!

UPDATE: Invader has some thoughts on the "Republican wing of the Republican party." I agree.

posted on Mar 11, 04 @ 12:46 pm ET [0] trackbacks

link this

Better late than never that the press is finally paying attention, I guess:

The Pentagon is paying $340,000 a month to the Iraqi political organization led by Ahmed Chalabi, a member of the interim Iraqi government who has close ties to the Bush administration, for ''intelligence collection'' about Iraq, according to Defense Department officials. The classified program, run by the Defense Intelligence Agency since summer 2002, continues a long-standing partnership between the Pentagon and the organization, the Iraqi National Congress, even as the group jockeys for power in a future government. Internal government reviews have found that much of the information generated by the program before the U.S. invasion last year was useless, misleading or even fabricated. Under the unusual arrangement, the CIA is required to get permission from the Pentagon before interviewing informants from the Iraqi National Congress, according to government officials who have been briefed on the procedures.

 
After all we've been through. So much for learning from our lessons. Take it away, IPS:

While it is now clear that professional intelligence analysts made some serious errors assessing Iraq's WMD programmes -- largely through a combination of assuming ''worst-case scenarios'' in the absence of hard evidence and lacking reliable agents or assets in Iraq either as informants or investigators -- the ''Feith factor'' has now emerged as the key focus of the committees' work. Shortly after the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and the Pentagon, Undersecretary of Defence for Policy Douglas Feith set up two groups, the Office of Special Plans (OSP) and the Counter-Terrorism Evaluation Group (CTEG). They were tasked to review raw intelligence to determine if official intelligence agencies had overlooked connections between Shiite and Sunni terrorist groups and between al-Qaeda and secular Arab governments, especially Hussein's. The effort, which reportedly included interviewing ''defectors'', several of them supplied by the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an exile group close to neo-conservatives who support Israel's Likud Party, closely tracked the agenda of the Defence Policy Group (DPG), chaired by Feith's mentor, Richard Perle. The DPG also convened after Sep. 11 with INC leader Ahmed Chalabi to discuss ways in which the terrorist attacks could be tied to Hussein. Neither the State Department nor the CIA was informed about the meeting.

 
Oh, here's the funny:

"We have serious problems on the intelligence side — deep and systemic," said Richard Perle, former chairman of the Defense Policy Board, an independent committee that counsels the Pentagon. "The CIA has an almost perfect record of getting it wrong in the (Persian) Gulf."

 
And he continued, "So as head of the Defence Policy Board, I decided to make it even 'wronger.'"

posted on Mar 11, 04 @ 11:35 am ET [0] trackbacks

link this

Go tell Poputonian that roping off the Square would be a bad idea. He's one of the stars of the new breed of polibloggers and it would be a shame to see him go.

posted on Mar 10, 04 @ 3:00 pm ET [0] trackbacks

link this

Sunday morning I was watching that talk show with the little short guy with the long last name and John McCain said the following about Bush's 9/11 ads:

I might not have used the ad of the coffin coming out, or the body coming out of the ruins with a flag on it.

 
And today it got me thinkin' ... Why didn't they just re-edit the ads? They could have easily slapped in a shot of Bullhorn Bush and not only quelled the furor, but actually made the ads better. But instead they stuck to their guns (some may argue that they were pointed at their own heads) and refused to change a damn thing. I was chalking it up to bullheaded arrogance and then it hit me. What if this is exactly the response they were looking for? Perhaps this wasn't a shock to them at all. This could very well be interpreted as a tactical move to start dulling the outrage over exploiting 9/11 long before they roll into NYC for the convention.

Think about it. How quickly did they roll out "lifelong Democrat" Debra Burlingame to not only appear on talk shows, but also to pen an editorial (ghost writer, anyone?) for the WSJ? And, even better, how effective has the rightwing media machine (NY Post, WSJ, Fox News, etc.) been at unfurling the meme that any of the victims' family members who complain about the president exploiting 9/11 for partisan purposes are a bunch of terrorist-loving, Bush-hating, wholly-owned mouthpieces for the Kerry campaign? I may be giving them way too much credit, but parse it a bit.

Looking at the polls, it's become pretty obvious that national security and the war on terror are the only things that still garner high ratings for Bush and the last thing they want is to have that edge diminished, even slightly, by the time they set up camp in NYC. If they slowly but surely amp up their "ownership" of 9/11 (sorry, it doesn't belong to all of us) and continue to hammer away at the reputations of the families (regardless of whether they're affiliated with a group or not--just as long as they're not explicitly pro-Bush), they'll eventually be able to waltz into the Big Apple and get away with all sorts of shit. The families will be so demonized and beaten down that they'll fade into the swarms of "unseemly" protestors with barely a whimper, Burlingame can deliver a speech at the convention to show that they're not all crazy, and Bush can pretty much do whatever he wants at Ground Zero, including accepting the nomination there.* It sounds crazy and, hell, it is crazy, but it's certainly within the realm of possibilities, especially when you consider that Rove is at the controls.

Unfortunately for them, if that's the plan, there's one hell of a pothole to get around on the way to Manhattan, and I hope for the sake of America and the honor of my great city that it's deeper and wider than all of the ones on the BQE put together.

* Okay, a reader caught me. This line originally ended with "..., including standing in front of a replica of the WTC and swatting away model airplanes like he's fucking King Kong." I thought it was a little too edgy (even for me), so I pulled it.

posted on Mar 10, 04 @ 1:37 pm ET [0] trackbacks

link this

Mattha Stewart:

(click to enlarge)

posted on Mar 10, 04 @ 10:58 am ET [0] trackbacks

link this

From the Daily News:

During a voter-registration drive in Washington Heights, Gillespie described those who complained as a "small segment of those who are very anti-war, not only anti-war in Iraq but were opposed to the military removal of the Taliban from Afghanistan." He cited a press conference by an anti-war group called 9/11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows and noted the event involved Moveon.org, which is running ads bashing Bush. Several victims' relatives who aren't part of Peaceful Tomorrows disputed Gillespie's claim. "I'm not anti-war on terrorism, and I'm pro-Bush and everybody knows it," said Jack Lynch, who lost his firefighter son Michael. "I still think that neither party ... should be using images of 9/11 for political gain." Clyde Frazier, who lost his son, called Gillespie's comments "very insulting." "I feel terribly bad that they used that ad," he said. Tom Roger, whose daughter was a flight attendant on doomed American Airlines Flight 11, said most of the families who complained were upset by what they say is Bush's unwillingness to cooperate with the commission investigating the pre-9/11 intelligence.

 
And yesterday Rushbo was getting all OxyIncontinent about the ads:

The vast majority of the American people are not offended by these 9-11 ads at all. In fact, probably just the opposite.

 
Oops:

Most Americans think it is wrong for any candidate, including President Bush, to run campaign ads using images from the Sept. 11 attacks, a poll finds. Survey results released Tuesday by The Gallup Organization found that 66 percent of those polled thought it was inappropriate to use images depicting the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Thirty percent said they thought it was appropriate. The majority -- 54 percent -- of a second group polled by Gallup said they thought it was inappropriate for the incumbent president to use such images, while 42 percent said they thought it was appropriate.

 
O-Man delivers a smackdown on the Head Widow Hunter.

Brent Bozell's beard wonders:

Imagine how the media will react when the Bush people go negative!

 
Heh, yeah, I can't wait!

Yesterday, Richard Cohen pondered who "owned" 9/11:

The president is entitled to use Sept. 11, since it happened on his watch and he performed admirably. But for the same reason -- his watch -- he ought to cease playing hard-to-get with the commission looking into how the terrorist attacks happened in the first place. If he wants to own Sept. 11, he's entitled. But it does not come alone. Sept. 10 is his, too.

 
This miserable shithead thinks widow-hunting is a "fun game." It's like shooting fish in a barrel, I tell ya! Too bad he couldn't have been there when they found out their "loved ones" were "killed" so he could have pissed on their coffee tables and planted a flag in the middle of them.

Debra Saunders tore herself out of a Pat Benatar video long enough to write:

But as another victim's family member, Debra Burlingame, wrote in The Wall Street Journal Monday, the press conference was "an attempt to stifle debate over the future direction of our country by declaring that the images of Sept. 11 should be off-limits in the presidential race, and do so under the rubric of 'The families of Sept. 11.'" The rubric is false, Burlingame has pointed out, as many of the Peaceful Tomorrows families have no problem with or even support the Bush/Cheney spots. Sept. 11 belongs neither to one political group nor to Bush, but to America. It was a nation-shaping moment and thus belongs to even American politics, all of American politics.

 
Actually, nowhere in her WSJ editorial does Debra Burlingame point out that "many of the Peaceful Tomorrows families have no problem with or even support the Bush/Cheney spots." Maybe Sauders should ease up on the perms because I think some of those chemicals are soaking through her skull casing.

And I'm just curious, where are all of the legions of pro-Bush 9/11 families the right keeps conjuring up? Aside from Burlingame, who, as I noted earlier, owes a few favors to the Republicans, I've only seen two other family members come out in support of the ads and, believe me, I've looked. I'm one of those "bloggers with Google" that Reynolds keeps crowing about.

FINALLY: Lt. Smash (stop giggling) was quick to demonize and bash Monica Gabrielle for, hell, I don't know -- having an opinion, but it's interesting to note that she's on the board of directors of 9/11 Families for a Secure America along with Lynn Faulkner, the widower who called up Rush yesterday to support the 9/11 ads. Hope I didn't ruin the fun.

And if you want to talk about who "politicized" 9/11 first, check out this post and then read Gabrielle's letter to the editor that Smash quotes. Recovery indeed.

posted on Mar 10, 04 @ 9:10 am ET [0] trackbacks

link this

Fire Fighters for Kerry

Fire Fighters for Bush

posted on Mar 10, 04 @ 5:20 am ET [0] trackbacks

link this

From yesterday's press briefing with Scott "Mobius Strip" McClellan:

Q A couple of follow-ups on Ken's earlier line of questioning. You mentioned that the President received this invitation for this dedication in mid-February. When was the decision made for the fundraiser to follow that? MR. McCLELLAN: I think the reception was planned back in January. Q So there's no feeling at all of an image problem in having a fundraising event after what you portray to be, and what is, a solemn ceremony for 9/11? MR. McCLELLAN: The President was invited to attend it. He's the President of the United States, Peter, and he is going to honor those who tragically lost their lives and pay tribute to them. Q I understand that, obviously. But, again, the idea of a fundraiser right after that -- MR. McCLELLAN: He has met with many of the families -- he has attended memorials before, and he will continue to attend memorials -- Q I understand those are your talking points, Scott. MR. McCLELLAN: -- for the reasons I stated. No, this is the President's views. The President never forgets the events of September 11th. They taught us important lessons, and he remembers those events every single day. Q Well, forgive me, but it would also seem like he never forgets the need for a fundraiser. MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I'm not even going to dignify that with a response.

 

 

posted on Mar 10, 04 @ 5:00 am ET [0] trackbacks

link this

One day of extensive widow-bashing wasn't enough for InstaRepugnant, today's he's gotta dip in for an even wordier round two. Coming soon: This sub-human asshole will have his army of "bloggers with Google" go through the list of victims of 9/11, determine who was "anti-Bush" (or, worse yet, who was "anti-war"), boldly announce that they purposely died to make Bush look bad, and call for a petition to have their names removed from the planned WTC memorial.

posted on Mar 09, 04 @ 5:53 pm ET [0] trackbacks

link this

I've noticed that several of the warbloggers got a real charge out of the signing out of the Iraqi constitution yesterday. They were doing their patented "take that" dance and finger-pointing at us fatalist freedom haters. As many of them only became conveniently concerned with the oppression of Iraqis after they ran out of excuses for the war, their blathering means nothing to me. Whatever. They can enjoy it while it lasts:

Shi'ite leaders warned on Tuesday that Iraq's new constitution could cause problems in the long term, with one senior cleric saying a clause on federalism had the potential to provoke civil war. The U.S. appointed Governing Council signed the transitional law Monday after long negotiations and two postponements, in a ceremony hailed by Washington as a diplomatic victory and an important step toward a democratic and sovereign government. But almost immediately after signing, several Shi'ite leaders said they were still unhappy with the law -- especially a clause they fear could give minority Kurds too much leverage -- and would seek to introduce changes further down the line. The criticism continued Tuesday. One of Iraq's foremost Shi'ite clerics, Ayatollah Mohammed Taqi al-Muddaresi, accused the U.S.-led coalition of willfully including the clause which majority Shi'ites see as a threat to their numeric dominance. "The clause in the transitional law relating to federalism is tantamount to a time bomb which could cause a civil war in Iraq," he said in a statement.

 
He said it, not me.

SIDE NOTE: Viva Chalabi! And the pro-war sheeples wonder why we're pessimistic. Sheesh. The real question is how can you not be pessimistic?

posted on Mar 09, 04 @ 11:09 am ET [0] trackbacks

link this